Karnataka High Court
Suryakant vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:263
WP No. 200191 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.200191 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SURYAKANT S/O DANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE SHAMSHANAGAR,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.
2. SMT.SHOBAVATI W/O SHIVRAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE SHAMSHANAGAR,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIDAR
KARNATAKA D.C. OFFICE, BIDAR-585401.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
A.C.OFFICE, BIDAR-585401.
3. TAHSILDAR, BIDAR
TAHSIL OFFICE,
BIDAR-585401.
4. REVENUE INSPECTOR, BAGDAL
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:263
WP No. 200191 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO
EFFECT MUTATION ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONERS BASED ON THE 'C' FORM ISSUED BY THE LAND
GRANT COMMITTEE DATED 11-05-2005 AND 15-05-2005 AS
AT ANNEXURE-A AND B WITHIN SUCH STIPULATED TIME BY
CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16-12-2025 AS
AT ANNEXURE-J AND TO COMPLY THE ORDER OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.200320/2025.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents.
3. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to effect mutation in the name of the petitioners on the basis of Form-C issued by the Land Grant Committee dated -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:263 WP No. 200191 of 2026 HC-KAR 11.05.2005 and 15.05.2005, so also to consider the representation dated 16.12.2025 along with prayer to comply the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.200320/2025.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners of land bearing Survey No.84 measuring 04 acres 38 guntas in Shamshanagar Village, Taluk and District Bidar, having been issued Form-C and Saguvali chit in the name of petitioners dated 11.05.2005 and 15.05.2005 by recognizing their unauthorised cultivation in respect of the Government land.
5. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that land in Survey No.84 originally measured 126 acres and 10 guntas and it was originally a "Parampok Government Land". The petitioners were unauthorised cultivators and made an application to the concerned authority for grant of land. The said application was considered by the Land Grant Committee and upon conducting survey and identifying the portion of the land -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:263 WP No. 200191 of 2026 HC-KAR in Survey No.84 under the cultivation of petitioners, a panchanama was drawn up and the land was identified in favour of the petitioners to an extent of 04 acres 38 guntas with petitioner Nos.2 and 1 respectively.
6. Pursuant to certificate of registration, petitioners made an application to the Tahasildar seeking to incorporate their names in the record of rights on which the report was called by respondent No.6 to identify the land in cultivation. Respondent No.6 revenue authority submitted a detailed report dated 28.09.2019 with a copy of panchanama certifying the fact regarding possession and cultivation of the petitioners over the land and recommending for effecting revenue entries in the name of the petitioners. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.6 in the report had referred entries in column No.11 of the Record of Rights referring to the entries in the name of Forest Department. Therefore, respondent No.3 Tahasildar held that after issuing notice to respondent No.5, passed an Order on 01.03.2024 rejecting the application filed by -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:263 WP No. 200191 of 2026 HC-KAR the petitioners for effecting mutation entries in the revenue records.
7. The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 authority by preferring an appeal invoking Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'). In the meanwhile, the respondent-State contested the matter by contending that the land belonged to the Forest Department and that it is a notified land under Section 29 of the Hyderabad Forest Act and therefore, issuance of Form-3 by the concerned authority in favor of the petitioners is without jurisdiction and therefore, sought for rejection of the appeal. The Land Grant Committee proceeded to pass an order cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioners by a common order dated 13.05.2024.
8. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioners preferred a revision before respondent No.1 authority under Section 136 (3) of the -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:263 WP No. 200191 of 2026 HC-KAR Act. On consideration of the said revision and on consideration of the said proceedings, respondent No.2 got issued Form-C. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.1 authority without appreciating the contentions of the petitioners regarding unauthorised cultivation in the Government Parampok Land, rejected the revision preferred by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, petitioners preferred writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.200320/2025 seeking to effect mutation entries in their names based on Form-C issued by the Land Grant Committee. This Court accepted the case of the petitioners and quashed the order dated 23.09.2025.
9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to quashing of the order which was impugned by the petitioners in the previous petition, they approached respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking to enter their names in the revenue records on the basis of Form-C issued. However, respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:263 WP No. 200191 of 2026 HC-KAR there was no specific direction to enter the names and refused to incorporate the name of the petitioners.
10. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondents are trying to evade the implementation of the orders of this Court with deliberate malafide intention including the entry of Form-C issued by the Land Grant Committee in the revenue records. Hence, petitioners left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy are before this Court in this petition. The representation of the petitioners has not been considered by the respondents.
11. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contends that there is some flaw and they are in the verge of challenging the order of this Court before the Division Bench. Hence, he contends that unless there is any outcome in the challenge which is sought to be made by the State, there cannot be a direction issued to the respondent-State to implement the order of the Land Grant Committee for issuance of Form-C -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:263 WP No. 200191 of 2026 HC-KAR and the revenue entries to be recorded in the name of the petitioners.
12. The contention of learned Additional Government Advocate cannot be accepted for the reason that no doubt the Government has the liberty to challenge any order that is passed by this Court in the appropriate forum. But it cannot be contented that till such order is passed, they would not implement the order passed by this Court or the issuance of Form-C by the Land Grant Committee for effecting mutation or change the revenue records. There is a mandate provided under Section 129 of the Act where the prescribed officer is obligated to enter in the register of mutations every report made to him under sub-section (1) of Section 128 of the Act or received by him under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of said section. Section 129(7) of the Act also contemplates that transfer of entries from the register of mutations to the record of right shall be effected in the prescribed manner provided that an entry in the register of mutations shall -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:263 WP No. 200191 of 2026 HC-KAR not be transferred to the record of right until such entry has been duly certified. Therefore, when there is a mandate clearly prescribed under the statute, it is an obligation and not an option for the respondent authorities to include, incorporate or change entries based on these certificates or the forms issued by the statutory authorities including forms issued by the Land Grant Committee. Under the circumstances, this petition would have to be allowed.
13. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A writ of mandamus is issued and a direction is given to respondent No.3 to effect mutation entries in the name of the petitioners based on Form-C issued by the Land Grant Committee dated 11.05.2005 and 15.05.2005 which shall be complied within a period of eight weeks from
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:263 WP No. 200191 of 2026 HC-KAR the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the same would be subject to any change or modification or challenge or reversal, if any, obtained by any party including the State.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT:SI